Damn right it's a matter of opinion. My opinion is that the deliberate abuse and exploitation of social niceties is immoral. What I don't see is how it being an opinion does anything to invalidate it, nor how pointing it out is an opinion is expected to convince me against holding it.
Edit: Perhaps I am a bit harsh here. I am frustrated overall at the general idea that nothing can ever be condemned, and morals may not be discussed, merely because they include a subjective value judgment. Those value judgments occur at all times, and are what give importance to the facts.
I totally agree that it's perfectly fine to discuss morals, even condemn them, it's a valid conversation and it should be explored.
Your point about the morality of their actions is totally valid in itself. A valid and well supported opinion.
However what I refer to is that you question how a piece like this article can go ahead and not point out the immortality of their ways. And I really think that from their business-centered, libertarian point of view, there just isn't any immortality here. In their opinion, they did things right. Therefore they could not point it out.
Edit: Perhaps I am a bit harsh here. I am frustrated overall at the general idea that nothing can ever be condemned, and morals may not be discussed, merely because they include a subjective value judgment. Those value judgments occur at all times, and are what give importance to the facts.